Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 677 (RAJ)

Bhanwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2006-02-27

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (for short, “the Code” hereinafter,) the petitioner has challenged the order dated 012.2005 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jalore (for short, “the trial Court” hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 19/2005, whereby the trial Court framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 148, 454, 427, 436/149, IPC and Sections 3(i)(xv) and 2/III of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act” hereinafter). Aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioner has filed the instant criminal revision. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned and the challan papers. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner regarding commission of the offences by him. The occurrence, as alleged by the complainant, is that the entire village, apart from the persons named in the report, caused damage to the property on the ground that her son committed rape in a minor girl of a particular village. From the perusal of the FIR and the statements of various witnesses, it nowhere appears that it was the petitioner who committed the offence. Even according to the prosecution story, there was a big mob of the entire village and every person of the village wanted the complainant party to go out of the village since the son of the complainant committed rape on a minor girl. No specific overt act has been assigned to the petitioner. 4. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that the parties have compromised the matter. 5. Keeping in view that no specific overt act has been assigned to the petitioner and the fact that who caused damage to the property of the complainant, has not been ascertained by her. When the house of the complainant was alleged to have been surrounded by the people of the entire village, in my view, the trial Court fell in error in framing the charges against the petitioner. On close scrutiny of the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code and considering the FIR, it cannot be said that the petitioner is one of those villagers who committed the offence, particularly when the other villagers have not been challenged. On close scrutiny of the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code and considering the FIR, it cannot be said that the petitioner is one of those villagers who committed the offence, particularly when the other villagers have not been challenged. In the circumstances, therefore, there is no ground to presume that the petitioner committed the offences for which he has been charged by the trial Court. More so, according to the learned Counsel for the complainant, the complainant has compromised the matter with the petitioner and the villagers. In the circumstances, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside. 6. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 012.2005 passed by the trial Court in Sessions Case No. 19/2005 is set aside and the petitioner is discharged of the offences under Sections 148, 454, 427 and 436/149, IPC and Sections 3(i)(xv) and 2/III of the Act. The stay petition stands disposed of .